The Iranian Election and Israel

Posted by Andrew Tobolowsky on 06.17.2009

Was it fixed? What next?

Was it fixed? I don't know. More than likely. I didn't initially think so, so much as I thought that people really WANTED it to be fixed. Nobody had any proof. The fact that it wasn't supervised and could easily HAVE been fixed isn't proof that it was. Then I found me a good article from time magazine-- right here -- which made several good points.

First, there is the fact that Ahmadinejad won all age classes and demographics. Unlikely.

Second, the government was somehow able to announce results an hour after the polls closed despite the fact that Iran does not use voting machines. Hmm. As Karim Sadjapour points out: "First of all there were 40 million votes cast and just two hours after the polls had closed they announced Ahmadinejad's victory: and these votes are hand counted in Iran..."

Ahmadinejad beat Mousavi in Mousavi's home town of Tabriz, which is real unlikely. He beat Mousavi in the big cities, and among the educated, when all available evidence suggested that Mousavi was far more popular in these areas.

Also, the third candidate, Karoubi, got below 1%. Even Ralph Nader did better than that.

So, yeah, it seems likely the election was fixed.

However, that doesn't mean Ahmadinejad wouldn't have won anyway. He IS popular in Iran, like it or not. Just not by as much as he did.

The better point, I think, is made by Christopher Hitchens ( here who may just be the angriest man in the world.

"Iran and its citizens are considered by the Shiite theocracy to be the private property of the anointed mullahs. This totalitarian idea was originally based on a piece of religious quackery promulgated by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and known as velayat-e faqui. Under the terms of this edict—which originally placed the clerics in charge of the lives and property of orphans, the indigent, and the insane—the entire population is now declared to be a childlike ward of the black-robed state. Thus any voting exercise is, by definition, over before it has begun, because the all-powerful Islamic Guardian Council determines well in advance who may or may not "run.""

I suppose my question is, why try so hard to look like a democracy? Who are they TRYING to impress? As many of you probably know, the president of Iran is a figurehead anyway, the country having been led by Ayatollahs since 1979. I believe this is the ONLY figurehead presidency in the world. I don't get it.

But this was a really interesting point, I felt. Mousavi was a moderate, but not a friend to America. For some reason the court of public opinion has become so caught up in other nations APPEARING to behave, as if they were students in a particularly difficult class, that if these nations can walk that walk—something we haven't yet had to face, but almost might have if not for the fixin'—they gain a lot of points in the court of public opinion, and that is where diplomatic coups are won.

Not "yes, we'll stop making bombs" type coups, but things like the PROACTIVE support of other nations for threatening those who would make bombs-- which is important.

As Massimo Calabresi points out, paraphrasing a senior European diplomat: "If a moderate were elected and negotiations with Iran still went nowhere, how would the U.S. and Europe stop Iran from going nuclear? With its centrifuges spinning, Iran could continue to amass enriched uranium while presenting to the outside world an openness to compromise."

Here's an interesting point. Benjamin Netanyahu came out two days ago with the opening salvo in Obama's turn to fix Israel-Palestine (good luck), offering a really ridiculous solution to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis---essentially that the Palestinians can have a state, but no army, airforce, guns, and very little else besides. And I'm someone who supports a strong Israel and is pretty skeptical about the Palestinian's plans re: Israel in general.

The reality is that Iran doesn't want to stop its nuclear program. To stop it, the US will have to get a bit nasty. But how? We don't really have the troops to send over for that kind of commitment, right now, and let's face it—we're never going to nuke them. Neither John McCain's sullen silence, showing Iran just HOW UPSET we are with their actions---THEY know what they did!---nor Obama's energetic discussions with officials are likely to be particularly useful. One thing that has worked before and could work again is the ol' "Israel bombs the reactor" play.

Progress in Israel right now presumably depends upon Obama finding a way to say he supports Israel but can't support Netanyahu's current plan. Netanyahu must have known that when he started talking, that his proposal was unacceptable to everyone. He may just not care what America thinks—but don't you think this coming a day after the Iranian election was decided is a bit curious?

Say, for example, that maybe Netanyahu knows America might be wanting his help sometime soon?

Just sayin'. I think he's overplaying his hand in a big way, but I've been wrong before. Once. In 1987.